Over the past years I have explored the line of argument of this chapter in several different settings. I would like to express my gratitude to all who have been willing to discuss my explorations with me.

Apel's point, to put it briefly, is that one cannot deny the characteristics of the ideal community of communication without falling into a performative contradiction. For this very reason all argumentation - which, as Apel argues, can only have force within a specific community of communication - is bound to the characteristics of the ideal community of communication.

Although I present these ideas in the context of a discussion about language, they have a larger significance than the field of language alone. For a brilliant application of these ideas on issues concerning politics and political theory, see Honig 1993.

Strictly speaking, there is only one way to avoid this mistake, which is by acknowledging that the differences that constitute the play of difference 'are themselves effects' (Derrida 1982:11). This means, then, that in the 'most classical fashion', that is, in the language of metaphysics, we would have to speak of them as effects 'without a cause' (Derrida 1982:12).

Over the past years a whole body of literature on Derrida's rather idiosyncratic use of the idea of justice has been published. Besides Derrida 1992, see also Derrida 1999; Critchley 1999; Biesta 1998b.

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.